Andrea Risk

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to restrain a harassment investigation, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling over $38,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on proportionality and reasonableness.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Queen's University and Cunningham, and $10,000 for Anand, balancing the plaintiffs' chaotic conduct of the motion with principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs, a university student and a community member, brought an urgent motion seeking to stay or enjoin an ongoing harassment investigation by Queen's University and its independent investigator.

They also sought a mandatory order requiring the University to investigate a separate discrimination complaint.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the investigator's independence was not compromised, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative process, and no mandatory duty to investigate the discrimination complaint had been triggered.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a Postgraduate Tribunal decision that dismissed her appeal of an Academic Review Board order requiring her to withdraw from the program.

She alleged procedural unfairness based on a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member and inadequate disclosure of redacted patient records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing with the Tribunal that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that sufficient disclosure had been provided.

The defendant Archdiocese moved to strike two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and similar facts regarding the abuser's conduct toward another victim.

The court found that pleading the history of charges and convictions was not pleading evidence, but rather material facts relevant to the institutional defendant's alleged failure to prevent abuse.

The court also held that pleading similar facts did not add undue complexity.

The motion was dismissed, save for a few words in one paragraph that improperly pleaded argument.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The defendant opposed, arguing that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the contextual analysis of just cause for dismissal, the plaintiff's state of mind regarding the disclosure of confidential information to her lawyer, and the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient for a fair and just determination on the merits and that a full trial was necessary to resolve the complex factual and legal issues, including the employer's broader grounds for termination beyond those initially stated.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and association after being denied a Sessional Adjunct Instructor position at the respondent university.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a learning disability, but there was insufficient evidence that the hiring committee was aware of it.

The Tribunal rejected the traditional three-step circumstantial evidence test in favour of a one-step test, ultimately finding that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring another candidate who was more qualified.

The allegations of discrimination by association and reprisal were also dismissed.

The appellant, an ordained Roman Catholic priest, brought an action for constructive dismissal after being removed from his office as pastor by the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese successfully moved to stay the action on the basis that the dispute was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in making factual findings on a jurisdiction motion and in finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the core of the dispute was ecclesiastical and the appellant was required to seek redress through the internal review process provided by canon law, which met the requirements of natural justice.

The applicant, a Black physician and assistant professor in the Division of Cardiology, alleged that he experienced racial discrimination when the respondent University denied his application for promotion to associate professor and in a subsequent performance appraisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for the denial of promotion, namely the applicant's lack of peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed funding as a principal investigator, as well as a teaching record that did not meet the 'very good' standard.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support an inference that the applicant's race was a factor in the promotion process or the performance appraisal, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a driver, alleged his employment was terminated because a customer who complained about his performance had previously referred to him using a racial slur.

Although the applicant is not a person of colour, he argued he was perceived as such.

The Tribunal found that while the employer had legitimate performance concerns, it failed to investigate the customer's racial bias after being informed of the slur at the termination meeting.

This failure tainted the termination decision, resulting in a finding of discrimination based on perceived colour.

The applicant was awarded $5,324 for lost wages, but claims for reinstatement and injury to dignity were denied.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a March 2007 decision not to hire him as a Sessional Adjunct Instructor, along with other allegations of a poisoned environment and a comment about his learning disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal narrowed the scope of the application to the March 2007 hiring decision, finding that post-complaint allegations were not properly added and the comment about his disability was untimely without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents, denied the respondents' request for further particulars, and denied the applicant's request for production of documents as they were not relevant to the sole remaining issue.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in the denial of a university promotion, the Tribunal ruled on the admissibility of several proposed witness statements.

The Tribunal struck proposed similar fact evidence from other faculty members as irrelevant and lacking sufficient connection to the respondents.

The Tribunal also struck proposed expert evidence challenging a university equity report and assessing the applicant's promotion dossier, finding that such evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

Certain paragraphs of the applicant's own witness statement were struck for raising new allegations not included in the original complaint.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in a university promotion process, the Tribunal ruled on requests to strike witness statements and expert reports.

The Tribunal struck portions of a witness statement and a proposed expert report by Dr. Frances Henry, finding the evidence either duplicative, beyond the permitted scope for supplementary filings, or unnecessary to assist the trier of fact.

The Tribunal also struck a paragraph of the applicant's statement regarding a respondent's subsequent employment status, but declined to strike other witness statements, noting that objections to hearsay or relevance went to weight rather than admissibility.

Case management directions were also issued.

In an application alleging discrimination in the denial of a promotion to Associate Professor, both parties made requests for the production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce unredacted Annual Reports and promotion dossiers for faculty members who applied for similar promotions within a five-year period, as well as information regarding prior discrimination complaints against the personal respondents or relating to similar promotion denials.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for exit surveys and broader statistical data.

The respondents' request for documents relating to the applicant's subsequent employment and achievements was dismissed as not arguably relevant to the liability phase of the bifurcated proceeding.

The applicant, who has multiple sclerosis, filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate, harassment, and reprisal by her employer and supervisor.

The respondents sought early dismissal, arguing the accommodation claims were out of time and the remaining claims were barred under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant's union had previously filed and withdrawn grievances regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found the accommodation claims were out of time and dismissed them.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the harassment and reprisal claims under section 45.1, finding that the union's withdrawal of the grievances without prejudice did not constitute a final resolution of the issues.

The applicant, a 62-year-old internal candidate, alleged age discrimination after he was unsuccessful in his application for a promotion to assistant area manager.

The respondent hired a younger external candidate, citing the applicant's history of difficulties with authority and lack of enthusiasm for workplace changes as the reasons for his rejection.

The Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination, concluding that the respondent's decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory concerns about the applicant's suitability and fit for a management role.

The application was dismissed.